




|

Friday, April 4, 2008
posted by Justin Hart | 9:08 AM | permalink
Matt Lewis points to a Huckabee motive. David Brody has a headache over this thing. But I see another motif at play here. Am I blowing smoke about the hidden anti-Mormon agenda of many of the signatories who signed onto the God Not Government post? Well, let's review. Granted, these excerpts don't come anywhere close to equating Mormonism to Homosexuality, but even I was a bit shocked by some of these quotes. My main point is this: if you want your egregious arguments to hold any water at all... don't include anti-Mormons on your list of adherents. - Matt Barber, Policy Director, Concerned Women for America quoted here as helping a reformed homosexual who converted to Mormonism find "scripturally-sound" evangelical churches to attend.
- Ted Baehr, Author of Culture Wise Family, on the September 11th film: "What [the character of] Brigham Young does in the movie is talk about…that you have to have blood atonement... This is going to be an issue [for Romney]. ”
- Janet Folger, President Faith2Action, See here: "Romney, as a Mormon, doesn't believe Jesus was God's only Son (Lucifer, they claim, was his 'brother'). Nor does he believe in the virgin birth. Instead, Mormons believe God the Father had physical sex with Mary. The word blasphemy comes to mind. A bit more than a mere 'denominational difference,' don't you think?"
- Gary Glenn, President AFA, Michigan, played the "religion card" in his GOTV efforts for Huckabee
- James Hartline, Founder and Publisher, California Christian News: "San Diego Republican Party Hits New Low - Invites Cult Member As Christmas Party Guest Of Honor" - "Mormon politics is more about promoting the economic interests of the Mormon Church and its wealthy members rather than any pseudo Biblical beliefs."
- Linda Harvey, President Mission America: "He used his Republican and Mormon identity to push through radical policies on gay marriage, abortion and pro-homosexual school programs that Ted Kennedy always dreamed about." - link
- Gregg Jackson: Writes here in an article entitled: "Is this the end of Evangelicalism in America?": "A cornerstone of the Mormon Church, Grudem writes, is the classic heresy of Saint Paul's day – angel worship. In his book, Grudem insists that an orthodox Christian must practice the theology he reads. So why would he step forward to become part of the Mitt Romney propaganda blitz trying to mislead evangelicals into doing what would shock most evangelicals in American history: elect a Mormon for president? "
- Peter LaBarbera: "The sponsor of a homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” bill in Utah is hailing the support of two Mormon-owned media organs, signaling the neutrality of the powerful and socially conservative church on an issue that is seen by many family advocates as the first step in the wider 'gay' agenda."
And I'm only half way through the list. In my mind, many of these people are hiding behind silly political pot-shots because they have theological angst against the Mormon church. Am I wrong here? Labels: evangelicals, mitt romney, mormonism
Friday, February 15, 2008
posted by Justin Hart | 11:29 AM | permalink
Rebecca Hagelin has an important column out today revisiting the issue of faith and in particular our man Mitt. Hagelin refers to the excellent documentary by Brian Hall called Article VI which examines the nexus of politics and religion in great detail: Part of what makes “Article VI” such a compelling film is that Hall and Donaldson give us historical context. They remind us, for example, that there’s a shameful tradition of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. When Al Smith ran for president against Herbert Hoover in 1928, he was pilloried for his Catholic faith. It was denounced as anti-democratic, monarchical -- not in tune with American institutions. And there’s also an appalling tradition of prejudice against those of the Jewish faith who seek high office. Remember the horrible questions the press asked of Sen. Joseph Lieberman when he ran for president? Some things never change. For many in the media, it seems, Mormonism is the new anti-semitism. I attended a private viewing of the documentary a few weeks ago and found the subject both compelling and unnerving. Hagelin continues: Whether it’s Mitt Romney speaking boldly of his Mormon faith, Mike Huckabee as an ordained Baptist minister, or Barack Obama taking the pulpit in churches across the country, the personal practice of deep faith by our would-be leaders must be passionately protected. As Kennedy told the Houston ministers: “Today, I may be the victim. But tomorrow, it may be you.” In my own opinion Mormonism did indeed play a role in Mitt Romney's defeat which is sad and unfortunate. I hope, like Kennedy's faith that we can overcome these prejudices. Labels: mormonism
Thursday, December 6, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 2:19 PM | permalink
Did Romney accomplish his mission? Provided here (in my opinion) are the points he covered, and covered very well!
| Item | Excerpt |  | Call on the historical morality of the American Republic
| "There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they're at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.' 'Our Constitution,' he said, 'was made for a moral and religious people.' |
|  | Point out the deep-rooted connection between freedom and religion | "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." |
|  | Affirm that religious leadership has no influence on policy
| "Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith. "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. |
|  | Reassure Americans of a commitment to all groups
| "As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States. |
|  | Strongly assert his own faith without qualification
| "There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith, and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they're right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. |
|  | Acknowledge differences in the faiths | "There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree. |
|  | Call on Article VI
| "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. |
|  | "Common Creed"
| "It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people. |
|  | Decry the slide towards secularism
| "Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" |
|  | Call upon the common heritage of religious traditions across denominations.
| "Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty? "They're not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united." |
|  | Take a swing at big government while we're at it
| "The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It's an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality. "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. |
|  | The fruits of my faith are my family
| "My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency. |
|  | Contrast American faith with Europe's dwindling congregations
| "I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I've visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, and so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away. |
|  |
Close with a great historical story
| "Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics. "Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot."And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation." | Labels: Mormon, mormonism, the mormon speech, the speech
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 4:43 PM | permalink
The co-chair of Fred Thompson's South Carolina campaign laid into Mitt's Mormonism on the eve of Romney's speech on religious liberties. Cyndi Mosteller, who has gotten in hot water previously for Mormon bashing, pulls no punches in an interview with the Palmetto Scoop: TPS: Why do you think it is that Republicans, the previous issue aside, might be reluctant to support a Mormon president, such that Romney feels he needs to give a speech addressing just this issue?
CYNDI MOSTELLER: I think the doctrines of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism are so vastly different from the Mormon doctrine; from the concept of polygamy being the order of Heaven, to human man’s progression to godhead of other worlds, to the idea that Jesus had multiple wives, to the idea that, after the death of the last apostle, all of Christendom was in apostasy – with a capital “A” as the Church refers to it – until Joseph Smith discovered the golden plates in the 1830s. So I think it’s inconsistent with so many basic Christian doctrines and it’s very unusual to the point that it’s almost unbelievable. These concepts are things that are theologically beyond our orthodox imagination. Orthodox imagination? Regardless of what Miss Mosteller believes about Mormons vs. Christianity (and she gets some Mormon doctrines and history FLAT WRONG in the interview), how does she make the leap from doctrinal disagreements to dissing Romney because he's not orthodox enough? I suppose if I accused Catholics of "ritual cannibalism" I could put the traditional Mass in a bad light for anyone and diss Rudy. If I accused Baptists of worshiping a disembodied God who is everywhere and nowhere at the same time I might be able to peel away a few members from the fold and stop people from voting for Huckabee. I won't do this because its nonsensical and can only lead to one thing, the left dissing all of us:  Will the Thompson campaign condemn this? Labels: Mormon, mormonism
posted by Justin Hart | 2:05 PM | permalink
9:30 AM Texas time / 10:30 AM EST
The Romney speech will probably be broadcast on many of the major cable news channels. You can also watch it live streaming on http://www.mittromney.com. Alternately, if you're on the road you can call in for the audio: Phone Number For Listen-Only Program Feed: 866-866-2244 Participant Code: 9411758
Of course, be sure you tune in to MyManMitt.com for live coverage of the event.  Labels: mitt romney, Mormon, mormonism, religion, the speech
Monday, December 3, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 9:08 AM | permalink
Jonah Goldberg brings up a point I've been trying to make for a while now: What I would like to know, however, is what exactly these people think a Mormon President might do that would be so unacceptable? Are there Mormon public policies I do not know of that would be implemented? Is there a Mormon faction in foreign policy? Before his Inbox becomes saturated I can tell you exactly what it is they will say: - Anyone who doesn't believe the Bible as evangelicals see it is of the devil and therefore can't be put into power
- Mormons have a secret society that is just dying to take over the government
- Joseph Smith supposedly said that the Mormon Elders would come in and save the constitution (and "we can't let that prophecy be fulfilled" I guess is what they're saying?). By the by, this supposed prophecy is third person hearsay and has never been taught in my lifetime as a Mormon
- Mormons once held policies that were presumably racist
- Mormons as a "cult" whose kids usually grow up eschewing pre-marital sex, don't drink, don't smoke, graduate from college, and have lots of kids! Can't you see the chaos that ensues?!
My two questions have always been 1) If a Mormon is unacceptable as President, can a Mormon be a Congressman, a Mayor or dogcatcher? and 2) What specific Mormon doctrine will make this whole country tumble into oblivion. Also, should Mormons in turn eschew anyone who isn't a Mormon running for office? Labels: mormonism
posted by Justin Hart | 7:32 AM | permalink
One rival campaign just noted that Romney has the week to himself with the announcement of the speech. That is just one of the many upsides. Yes, expectations are high, but consider: - Romney & Co. know what needs to be addressed
- They've had a year to prepare for the speech (if not longer)
- All cameras will be his for one night and the press will be his for the rest of the week
- This gives people an excuse to move their vote to Romney and save face
- If he does well, the momentum could prove the turning point in this campaign
In the end, however, this is no mean feat. The good folks at Article 6 blog articulate the issues that Romney has to juggle: - Ignorance of Mormonism, and resulting distrust or suspicion of Romney by people who generally lack malice;
- Distrust of Mormonism by others with serious theological differences who believe such differences actually have something to do with choosing a presidential candidate;
- The belief (held by many who are also in category no. 2) that Mormonism is a serious menace to society and to the eternal salvation of mankind, and that electing a Mormon president would only serve to legitimize that menace;
- Outright bigotry by those who really hate Mormonism, either from religious conservatives who see the faith as an all-too-successful competitors for parishioners, or left-wing bigots like Jacob Weisberg who dispute any belief in the miraculous;
- Last, but perhaps most important in this context, politicians and their consultants (Huckabee for now, certainly Clinton in the general election, if Romney is nominated), who see an opening here and are exploiting it. This category is the most disgusting of them all.
I'll have more on this later. Labels: mitt romney, mormonism, the mormon speech, the speech
Monday, November 5, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 6:49 AM | permalink
Just a quick plug for myself (a dubious approach to be sure... but I like the attention). Over the weekend, American Thinker (Rush Limbaugh's favorite website) published an article which I penned. In it, I note the significant "thaw" that has taken place between Evangelicals and Mormons. Here's a quick excerpt: In 2004, hundreds of Mormons crowded into the Provo Tabernacle and listened intently as the speaker, who was not a member of the LDS faith, declared: "We have sinned against you."
Was this Bryant Gumbel apologizing for belittling the BYU Cougar's 1984 NCAAF title? Was it Jim McMahon asking forgiveness for consistently sitting on the Wyoming stands for BYU homecoming games? No, it was noted evangelical scholar Richard J. Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary.
In the rush of news articles handicapping Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations is an unnoticed but significant thaw in the troubled relations between Evangelicals and Mormons. Read the whole thing here. Labels: evangelicals, Mormon, mormonism
Monday, October 22, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 10:00 AM | permalink
None of this information is the campaigns, it is Justin's interpretation of eventsRegardless of what you think about "Romney the candidate"... "Romney the campaign" is unmatched in its ability to execute. Take this last week for example. Think of it in terms of a business case study, outlining the "challenge", proposing a "solution", targeting specific "benefits" and measuring "results". CHALLENGE: Disolve concerns about Mitt's Mormonism among Conservative Evangelicals. SOLUTION: Highlight the Governor as the only leading candidate meeting 100% of the SoCon values and win endorsements from leading Evangelicals leading up to the seminal pre-primary "Values Voters" conference. BENEFITS: Develop day after day endorsements followed by a good showing at the straw poll giving serious momentum to the campaign among Evangelicals and building qualified talking points to address the Mormon question. EXECUTION PLAN 2 weeks out - Lead up to the conference. Look for "Mormon questions" addressed to Perkins, Bauer, Land and others. Rely on their even-handed past dealings with this issue as a positive sign. ( check, check) 1 weeks out - Letter from Mark DeMoss addressed to numerous Evangelical leaders contrasting Romney and Rudy and laying the foundation for a larger swath of backers. ( check) 5 days out - First endorsement, ideally, from far extreme of the religious right showing that anyone could endorse Romney ( check - Chancellor and Dean of Bob Jones) 4 days out - Letter from James Bopp, Jr. highlighting the growing movement of Evangelicals behind Romney ( check) 3 days out - Talking heads start to notice the pattern. Experts concur. ( check) (reach out to blogger base for email-only campaign for the online straw poll) 2 days out - Pull out the big guns. Lengthy, detailed article by new Evangelical endorsement laying the intellectual framework in which Evangelicals can accept a Romney candidacy. ( check - Wayne Grudem) 1 day out - Endorsement by an excellent conservative Evangelical coinciding with Romney's speech to the "Values Voters" Conference in DC. ( check - Dr. Don Wilton). Day of straw poll - Final endorsement before the conference ends. This time taken from another campaign. ( check - Dr. Willkie founder of a pro-life effort) Goaline: Place or show in the straw poll to drive some good press. ( check - or win it :) ) None of this happens by accident. The plan is laid, the efforts set and the execution is nearly flawless. Classic Team Romney. Labels: endoresements, Endorse, evangelicals, LDS Mormon Romney, mormonism, mormons
Thursday, May 24, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 3:47 PM | permalink
 | Elder Hart (circa 1992) on my mission in Poland. The two gentleman are not Mormon converts (or prospects for that matter). They are, shall we say, not thirsty. Note: this picture was taken at 1:00PM in the afternoon |
Wow! A non-hit piece from a leftist rag about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. Will wonders never cease! Noam Scheiber in The New Republic has an excellent piece entitled: "How missionary work trains Mormons to stump for Mitt" (subscription req'd) comparing the canvassing approach of modern politics to the experience that many Mormons get on a mission (full disclosure here, I'm a member of the LDS Church). I was holding my breath reading the article waiting for some asinine line about Mormon underwear and authoritarian rule from the secret room in the Salt Lake City Temple... happily it never came. Here are some key graphs: There's no question that the enthusiasm of affluent Mormons is a huge boost for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor could not have solidified his first-tier status without his impressive fund-raising haul, and the haul would not have happened without his Mormon base. But, then, as the Romney campaign never hesitates to point out, this kind of advantage is hardly unheard of in presidential politics. Michael Dukakis tapped the wallets of affluent Greek-Americans in 1988; Joe Lieberman benefited from outsize Jewish donations in 2004. This is accurate. Just as Rudy Giuliani will draw from Italians, Obama from African Americans and John McCain from traderous RINOs (j/k)... Romney's Mormonism does, however, confer at least one truly unprecedented advantage--one that could be decisive in a closely contested primary. It derives from an aspect of the Mormon community that the press has largely underplayed: the vast grassroots organizing potential of thousands of highly-disciplined young missionaries.
OK... just so Erik Erickson doesn't get plastered by Hugh again... let me make this absolutely clear. Noam is not saying that Mormon missionaries will be canvassing for Mitt but that the experience they gain on a mission is akin to political grassroots activities and that return-missionaries (RMs as Mormons call them sometimes) will make great ground troops for Mitt. Once more for emphasis: NO MORMON MISSIONARY WILL BE HITTING THE PAVEMENT FOR MITT. If fact, I suspect that the LDS Church will give explicit instructions to missionaries to avoid discussion altogether about the subject. Back to TNR: The Mormon Church is somewhat vague with the details of missions, so I've relied on two Mormon sources to get a sense of how the process works. (Some of the particulars may have changed since they served in the 1990s, but the broad thrust should be the same.) The typical mission begins with a three-week training course at the aptly named Mission Training Center in Provo, Utah. There, the Mormons receive a crash course on the missionary lifestyle and the rudiments of spreading the good word.
Arguably the most important skill they acquire in this regard is how to get in the door, and the trainees hone this skill through extensive role-playing. For example, they are taught to search for common ground with potential converts--everything from their taste in cars or pets to their religious worldview. "Take the belief in Jesus Christ," says one of the former missionaries. "We might have different beliefs about Him, but most people do believe in some sort of Supreme Being, they have ideas about that. You build on that, go from there." It's not so different from the way a canvasser might seek a connection with a voter over, say, a shared interest in the environment.
There are roughly 100 regional missions in the United States (out of about 340 worldwide), each of which is divided into several zones of about 20 missionaries, with each zone subdivided into three or four districts. Upon arriving at his or her mission, a young Mormon will meet with the mission president--usually a respected member of the Mormon community called to serve a three-year term--who assigns the missionary to a district. Once there, he or she will be paired with a more experienced partner--called a "companion"--who functions as an on-the-job trainer. Most missionaries work twelve hours a day, six and a half days a week. They live on small stipends, in Spartan quarters--secondhand furniture, no TVs or computers--and dine on such extravagances as cereal and peanut butter. The Church allows them to call home exactly twice a year: on Christmas and Mother's Day. Rejection is overwhelmingly the most common feature of their existence.
Veterans of early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire often speak in the obscure shorthand of "ones," "twos," and "threes." Ones refer to the voters who are solidly with your candidate. Twos are people who are either leaning that way or are altogether undecided. Threes are people who support your opponent. The job of the organizer is to convert all the twos to ones and to keep the ones from backsliding. The total number of ones at any given time is known as the campaign's "hard count." (Tellingly, Trippi constantly complained that the Dean campaign lacked a meaningful hard count.)
It turns out that Mormon proselytizing is remarkably similar to corralling voters in this respect. In effect, the missionary's universe also consists of ones (the people firmly on track to be baptized as Mormons, known as the "baptizing pool"), twos (people open to converting but who haven't entirely made up their minds, called the "teaching pool"), and threes (people who slam doors in their faces--i.e., the vast majority). As in politics, the twos receive the most attention. The Mormon technique for winning over metaphysical undecideds involves asking a person to make a series of gradually escalating commitments. After the first encounter, the missionary might ask them to read a passage in the Book of Mormon and pray about it. Over time, the missionary will petition the prospect to abstain from cigarettes, alcohol, and out-of-wedlock sex. (The canvasser, by contrast, will usually settle for convincing someone to display a yard Really good stuff and altogether accurate. Of course if you read Hugh Hewitt's book this would be old hat. More on this soon... Labels: Mormon, mormonism
Friday, May 11, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 12:05 PM | permalink
 Tim Magazine has two articles on Mitt for its upcoming issue. One political, one religious. We'll discuss the later for the moment Nancy Gibbs writes in "Romney's Mormon Question". Here are some excerpts and some comments. The piece is generally fair. But there are two troubling aspects that I can summarize in two questions: - To Nancy: Can you point me to a religious view that Mormons hold that would directly call into question Mitt's fitness for office?
- To Jacob Weisberg (whom Nancy quotes prominently): Should the "Weisberg Principle of Nutiness" (my phrase) apply just to people running for President? How about Senate Majority Leader? Congressman? Councilman? Dog Catcher? At what point does someone's faith hit the Weisberg religious ceiling?
OK... now that I have that out of the way. Let's discuss the article in detail: The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land. This is a fair assessment of the general problem before us. I should point out - there's nothing new here - there were similar questions in 2000 and 2004. What's changed? A Mormon has entered the race. [Referring to Romney's explanation of a "person of faith"] But he can hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not. Of course religious views matter and I love discussing them. Here's where I raise my first question from above: Can someone point me to one religious view that Mormons hold that directly disqualifies someone from a political office? But when it comes to religiously conservative voters, the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to deliver. I've found quite the opposite. Everyone I speak to who gets to know Romney is quite taken with him. Take this instance cited in today's New York Times ( h/t HH) Even among evangelicals who say they are at least willing to consider Mr. Romney, support in many cases appears to be shaky. Larry Gordon, senior pastor of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, said his initial instinct was to rule out Mr. Romney because of his faith. But after his son, who is also a pastor at the church, came away impressed by Mr. Romney after an event, he began to examine him more closely. Back to Nancy. One error (minor or not): A separate ceremony was held for "gentiles," as non- Mormons are called. We don't call them "gentiles". Michael Medved makes a joke about that sometimes. But we refer to non-mormons internally as non-Mormons. I've never heard anyone refer to non-Mormons as gentiles. This is a quibble... but any Mormon proofing the article could have told her that - which indicates that probably no Mormon did review this. Not a big deal... moving on... "Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job." Here's where our second question comes up: should the "Weisberg Principle of Nuttiness" apply only to people running for President? How about Speaker of the House? How about Congressman? Councilman? Dog catcher? What is the level of importance in public life where the religious ceiling is hit? The other aspect has already been asked... what level of nuttiness is needed? What do you qualify as nutty? Lastly, it would be great if someone acknowledged or wrote about the thaw happening between Evangelicals and Mormons. In short, Nancy piece is all around pretty fair. Kudos. Labels: Mormon, mormonism, nancy gibbs, Time magazine, weisberg
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 1:27 PM | permalink
In case you missed it. Al Sharpton threw some more verbal spears (his forte really) -- this time at the Mormons and Mitt Romney. Now that the initial shock of Al's jab has worn off -- I have to revisit his quote again and try to decipher the logic therein. There is none. Here's the offending sentence: "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” It's almost a throw away insult from Sharpton which makes the insult even worse. With 25 words Sharpton insinuates a boat load of raw bigoted crap: 1) Romney is a Mormon and therefore not a serious candidate. In Al's mind, Romney's denomination is as much a disqualifying characteristic as it is a defining one. The "one Mormon running for office" - he can only bring himself to refer to Romney by his abhorrent faith and not by name. In Al's world, Romney's faith makes him irrelevant. It also layers his bigoted cake with a twinge of removal and flippancy, something Al is adept at using when confronted with, say, Tawana Brawley. 2) Romney is a Mormon and thus disqualified. In Al's mind, no right-thinking Christian could ever vote for the "one Mormon". According to Al, Romney is as much a throw away as his one-liner. No need to worry of course: "those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway." Who is he referring to here? Will McCain and Rudy be hailed as the Mormon-eating Christian warriors for Al? Will Obama defeat Romney next November with Sharpton whistling "Onward Christian Soldiers" as they unlatch the door on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Why did he need to make this statement in the first place? Is there "worry" out there about the "one Mormon" might actually win this election? 3) Mormons have no place in the American politics. What!? A Jew is on the ship? No worries, those right thinking Christians will toss him overboard. That's offensive... but it's essentially what he said. How about we lower the race a bit... say School Superinendent of Fairfax County, Virginia. Let's do a bit of editing and roll tape... "As for the one Mormon running for [School Superintendent], those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Yikes! That sounds almost as bad as our semitic replacement. Use anything... how about Student Body President, PTA Board member, paper boy... where does it stop? Or... is it only for important jobs. 4) Real believers in God will rise up and defeat all non-believers in God. The subsequent deed following the cry of "Allah Ho Akbar!" is thankfully absent from Al's quick diatribe... but the sentiment is striking similar. Al - Let's leave the religious political poisonous infighting to the Shiia and Sunii. There's no place for it here. You see Mormons don't really believe in God. Al may question (indeed many of my readers may question) the God I believe in but don't tell me I don't believe in God. And don't tell me that someone who doesn't even believe in God can't participate in American politics. And what does "temporary situation" really mean? I can picture Marlon Brando, cotton balls in mouth, reciting that quick diddy... but I expect more from a supposed religious leader. Perhaps I'm missing the context. Here's the quote again in the context of the NY Times writer: Noting that Dr. King had established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he said, “There’s no question that he himself saw that the basis of the movement was God-based.” He added, “To try and secularize the civil-rights movement is just totally inaccurate. It was a church-based, faith-based movement; there’s just no question about that. … Let’s not reinvent Dr. King any more than we try to reduce God to some denomination or convention.”
But Mr. Sharpton, in a jab at Mitt Romney (and the Mormon religion, which Mr. Hitchens had criticized because it once endorsed racial segregation), added, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Well, that didn't help his case any. So Sharpton declares that Dr. King's movement was a faith-based movement, a God-based movement. But apparently, Al's interpretation of the movement has no room for Mormons even though Mormons made room for him 30 years ago. This exclusionary faith-based mantra would come as a surprise to my 9th Great Grandfather, Jean Pierre Bondurant, a devout Huguenot, who fled to America from France in 1700 to avoid persecution and help found the area of Manakin, Virginia. This is upsetting on so many levels. I guess I shouldn't be shocked. Al Sharpton has a history of this type of divisive nonsense. One last word... watch out Harry Reid, Al is coming after you with his legions of true God-fearing challengers. They will defeat you... and all of us if we don't call Al on his bigoted comment. Labels: al sharpton, Mormon, mormonism
posted by Justin Hart | 9:00 AM | permalink
UPDATED ANALYSIS - SEE HERE - Yesterday Al Sharpton said: “As for the one Jew running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Are you kidding me! Oh, wait... I got that quote wrong.... here's the actual quote: “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry, that’s a temporary situation.” Does that sound any better? As Hugh Hewitt points out... if Al said: If Al had declared that a Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim or candidate would be defeated by those "who really believe in God," how great would the outcry be?
I'm speechless?! For all his banter and vile against Imus (some of it justified) -- how does he justify these comments? Any ideas on how to counter this? I'll have more later. Labels: al sharpton, Mormon, mormonism
Thursday, May 3, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 10:42 AM | permalink
David French (the founder of Evangelicals for Mitt) has a great post (after a brief hiatus) about Mormons, Mormonism, politics and such. His comments are a welcome breathe of fresh air to this already heated debate: I know that I'm going to get in trouble in some quarters for the following statement, but I'm going to say it anyway. I love Mormons, and I deeply appreciate the role played by the LDS church in our nation and our culture.
...
When "family values" are derided, families tend to falter. When families falter, poverty and violence follow like night follows day. When unborn children are viewed as a "clump of cells" that exists at the convenience of the mother rather than as a living person, they can be dismembered and slaughtered on a scale that staggers the imagination. When everything is relative and our culture is viewed as no better than any other, we lose the will to fight evil, and we abandon our friends abroad. This is really a rallying cry for the entire conservative movement - or it should be. As Kate O'Beirne has declared before, if the movement loses the value issues... there's precious little left." David continues: In the midst of this culture, our churches often look at millions of fractured families, millions of lost children, and waning resolve in the face of undeniable evil and say: "It's our fault, really. If only we were more accepting of family arrrangements that lead to poverty. If only we were less 'obsessed' with murderous medical 'procedures,' and more 'understanding' of the people who seek to behead us, then perhaps we'd have influence in this culture."
...
So we watch as the mainstream denominations (and even some evangelicals) slide into a meaningless and empty social religion that is utterly powerless to sustain the soul or to confront evil.
But not Mormons. The LDS church still stands proudly for the family, for human life, and with the moral resolve necessary to confront the challenges of our time. They give generously, serve enthusiastically, and stand shoulder to shoulder with evangelicals on the great moral and cultural issues of our time. In my own life, every single Mormon that I have come to know has been kind, generous, and utterly devoted to their family. I hope that this is a wide perception. Richard Mouw, from the Denver Theological Seminary, has previously decried the "belicose doctrinal terrorists" that attack the Mormon faith and I agree. Our joint efforts in Alaska, California, Ohio and elsewhere show marked success, even as we disagree on theological grounds. Thanks David. Labels: Mormon, mormonism
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 6:57 AM | permalink
 | Inside the Conference Center in Salt Lake City where Mormons just convened for their semi-annual Church-wide Conference
|
It's difficult for me to express my reaction to Mr. Woodard's article in yesterday's New York Times. Some have decried it as bigoted diatribe, noting that by replacing the word Mormon with Jew it comes across very poorly. Certainly, there are parts that make me cringe but as a devout Mormon familiar with anti-Mormon rhetoric, Mr. Woodard's piece is pretty tame, by comparison. I mean - if you want anti-Mormon rhetoric - I've got anti-Mormon rhetoric for you. Like the noted author who envisions the spires of the Washington D.C. Temple set there as nails to "crucify Christ anew" when he comes again. Or, since were on the subject of Mitt Romney, this gem from an obscure blog: "Now gentle readers, for a time this will be my last post on Mormon Mitt Romney, the great hope of the false cult religion that desperately wants to convert the world so that they can fill them with their demons and take them to the lake of fire for an enternity, for awhile." I'd give you the link but I really don't want to give this guy any traffic (heaven knows he needs it). But there are some things we need to clear up about Mr. Woodard's piece... so here we go: 1) "Mormon clannishness" AND "A good Mormon is a busy Mormon"I put these two together because they are intimately related. I know a lot of people in the blogosphere have taken offense at the "busy" caricature, but when I mentioned it to most Mormons - they laughed... because in many ways it's accurate. We are a busy folk. Yes, Mormons are sometimes clannish but no more so than say full-blooded Italians or Greeks (wait - is that bigoted?). The main reason that Mormons are perceived as "clannish" is that we spend a lot of time together. Take this week for instance: - It started at 9:00 on Sunday morning. A singer in another "Ward" was fallen ill and my wife filled in for one of the solos.
- Then we spent 3 hours at our Ward enjoying the Sabbath.
- (Did I mention that we started the day with the kids collecting those eggs ala the Pagan rites of Easter? Wait, is that bigoted?).
- Last night, we dutifully attened to our FHE (Family Home Evening) as the church recommends, spending Monday night with our families singing, reading scriptures and eating unseemly deserts.
- This morning, Mormon High School kids all over the U.S. will wake up before 6:00 and head down to their local chapel for early morning Seminary where they are studying the New Testament this year.
- Today (Tuesday) my nine year old will go after school and attend "Activities Day".
- Tonight, my twelve year-old will go to "Young Women's activities" - planting flowers in a fellow Mormons back yard.
- Thursday night my wife and I will attend some meetings to help plan for summer activities for the Church teenagers (we're building a replica of Moses' tabernacle in the wilderness)
- Saturday I'll be preparing for my Sunday School lesson on John 5-6 about Christ as the "Bread of Life"
So... yes, we are busy. I don't take too much offense from this - but I view it as a bit of a slight. 2) "To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation."Woodward is obviously taking his cues from the Ostlings and the 1997 Time article "Mormons, Inc". This is more silly than it is offensive. The offensive part comes later when Woodward states: "Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses." First, it's flat wrong. In my large circle of Mormon friends there isn't a single person who has ever taken a job with some church-owned business. I'm not even sure what he means!? Occasionally I volunteer at the Church's canning facility in Maryland but I don't think that qualifies in his statement. Do Mormons go on missions? Yes. The rest of it is humbug. (The whole slight of "vast administrative offices" and "assume full-time duties" implies the offensive lock-step cult caricature.) Lastly, the "soul of the corporation" phrase was manufactured by leftist critics who have left the church. 3) "Mormons like to hire other Mormons, and those who lose their jobs can count on the church networks to find them openings elsewhere."Yes, shockingly enough the Church tries to take care of its members. The Mormon Church even has an extensive website ( ProvidentLiving.org) to help anyone in their finances, find employment, and even with their physical health. 4) "That some voters still confuse the Latter-day Saints with fundamentalist Mormon sects that continue to practice polygamy and child marriage is another reason the candidate should take the time to set the record straight."While I feel that Woodward is somehow dictating Romney strategy... he's probably right on this one. 5) "Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders."I think this phrase is definately a slight. He's referring here to the way we portray doctrine to others. I think this is flatly unfair. If he has more than one example to cite I welcome it. 6) "There is no evidence that church authorities have tried to influence any of these public servants. "Finally, a refreshing stance. I agree with you on this one. Thanks Kenneth. In short, I can see how Hugh and Dean and others can be flatly offended by this approach. But most Mormons will tell you - "I've heard worse" Labels: Mormon, mormonism
Thursday, March 22, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 2:48 PM | permalink
 I just participated in an excellent bloggers conference call questioning Hugh Hewitt on his book "A Mormon in the White House?" (see link over the right). Hugh has hoisted and hosted a deluge of interviews on the book and is now channeling Henry Kissinger with a decisive rasp in the voice. (quick tip for Hugh from a family of professional singers: mug full of hot water, 3 tablespoons of apple cider vinegar, one heaping tablespoon of honey, balance to taste and sip). Great questions all around from the crowd. I asked about the discussion of religion inside and outside the campaign. Thomas Lifson, the editor of AmericanThinker.com had this to say recently: We are all going to be learning about the Latter Day Saints, should Mitt Romney gain the nomination. One side benefit of a Mormon candidacy for the president would be sustained attention to a fascinating religious group, comprising a distinctive thread in the American tapestry. To be blunt, this is a group of people who stick to traditional values and thrive brilliantly. Their success speaks for itself, epitomized by Romney himself. The more people who look closely at the Mormons, the better off we will be. There are implications to be drawn, and nothing teaches like example. Work hard, be thrifty, save, give, emphasize family, and have kids are values that transcend any one religion.
Hugh has indicated that Romney gets to set the terms of the debate around his religion. To date the Governor and his campaign have avoided the detailed doctrinal questions around Mormonism (which in my estimation is a good thing). I asked whether or not a larger debate and dialogue is necessary outside the campaign to relieve the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) that people have about Mormonism. Hugh believes it would be a good thing and notes that it has already started. The appendix of his books is a transcript of a dialogue he had between two prominent theologians. Get the book and read it... it's very instructive. (I'm penning an article on this as we speak). Another question was raised about the Salt Lake City issue (dubbed the Linker issue). Namely, that if elected, Mitt will be beholden to the Mormon powers that be. The Damon Linker article (from the New Republic) was decisive in it's conclusion: absolutely yes! Of course, they probably never bothered to ask any Mormons about it. As a Mormon, I can tell you unequivocally that this is a false premise and notion. Two quick points. 1) The Articles of Faith are thirteen points that every Mormon memorizes in their youth. While not comprehensive, they represent the salient points of Mormonism and represent our core doctrines. Article 12 reads: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. This is not just an idle creed. I served my mission for the Mormon Church to Poland from 1990-1992. I was in one of the first groups of missionaries to be called to Poland (after the wall came down). Until that time the Communist government of Poland had allowed very few missionaries to enter the country. Up until 1989 there were only 4 representatives of the church in the country. Other faiths (such as the Jehovah's witnesses) did their proselytizing illegally behind the Iron Curtain. Mormons did not. Interestingly enough, this became a benefit for us in other former Soviet block countries as governments gave us more leeway on land leases and missionary permits than other evangelizing groups because we had respected their bylaws in previous years. This creed is also why the Church submitted to the congressional decrees baning Plural Marriage in the late 19th century. In short, we obey the laws of the land. 2) The New Republic also failed to ask Harry Reid about this. Here's an interesting story you may not know. In the spring of 2006, the LDS Church took the rare (if not unprecedented) move to have Mormon Bishops across the country read a statement to their congregations supporting a marriage amendment. Then (in a very unprecedented move) the Church sent one of their Senior Apostles, Elder Russell M. Nelson, to appear next to Senator Allard in support of the vote and urged members to call their Senators and express their opinion.  Elder Nelson in D.C. last summer Credit: Meridian MagazineMeanwhile, down the hall, devout Mormon Harry Reid was mustering his troops to oppose the amendment. Was Harry Reid later reprimanded or excommunicated? No. That about settles the issue in my mind... I'll have a lot more to say in coming months. In short, just know that Mitt Romney is as independent as John F. Kennedy from the supposed binding grasp of his religious ecclesiastical authority. Labels: book, damon linker, elder nelson, hugh hewitt, mitt romney, Mormon, mormonism
Monday, February 26, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 9:00 AM | permalink
The press finally finds a skeleton; 5 Reasons not to be worried; Brody on Mitt, Clift on Mitt, and Rudy on Mitt's religion.
MP3 File
SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST CLICK BELOW:


OR use our feed:
XML Podcast Feed
Labels: audio, mittcast, mormonism, polygamy, rudy
Saturday, February 24, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 8:11 AM | permalink
Hugh Hewitt sat down with Rudy this week and asked the mayor about Mitt's Mormon faith. Rudy responded: I think that the Governor’s religion is not an issue in any way in the campaign, and any more than John Kennedy as being a Catholic was an issue, or Senator Lieberman as being Jewish when we ran for vice president. I mean, these things…I think we’re way beyond that, and I don’t think it’ll be an issue. I mean, obviously, by an issue, people will comment on it, but I think the American people have gone way beyond that, and they’re willing…what they want to do is look at the person, and what kind of…how have you performed in public office, what have you done, have you acted as a fair, impartial person in dealing with people of all different religions or whatever. And if that’s the case, those are the issues, not is what is someone’s religion, but how have they acted.
Rudy is a decent guy who admittedly is ahead in the polls right now (but behind in fundraising and endorsements). We applaud Mayor G. and hope we can continue to focus on the issues. Cheers. Labels: faith, Mormon, mormonism, rudy
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
posted by Justin Hart | 9:29 AM | permalink
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR "THIS WEEK" BELOWI should note at the outset that a good number of our bloggers here are NOT Mormon. With that caveat I have this to say about George Stephanopolous. Listen, it's one thing to knock my candidate for President. It's quite another to say that Mitt has his Mormonism wrong or that I DO for that matter. Here's how it played out: George asks Mitt over the weekend about a specific Mormon doctrine and how Muslims might perceive it. Mitt corrected George and said we believe the same as other Christians that Christ will come to Jerusalem and set foot on the Mount of Olives. George goes and asks a "Mormon spokesman" about it and then comes on the air to say that Mitt has his Mormonism wrong? He repeated it again yesterday!George you are no Mormon theologian! I am literally getting saturated with emails from my friends (disclosure: I am Mormon) upset about this strange turn of events. And it's not just Mormons questioning this media approach. See Thomas Lifson here.I will let a BYU Professor say his peace on the matter: Mormon eschatology is complex and multifaceted, and George Stephanopoulos's seeming "gotcha" with regard to Mitt Romney rests on his own illusion that he has our doctrine pinned down. He doesn't. Romney is right.
I'm afraid that benighted Mormons such as myself are in for a long and perhaps unpleasant season of hearing our beliefs defined for us. We may often not even recognize them. I'm reminded of a comment that Barry Goldwater made after the 1964 presidential election, when he finally got a chance to go through his press clippings: "I didn't realize what a son of bitch I am until I read the newspapers about me."
- sourceHere's the contact information for This Week. E-mail: thisweek@abc.com Phone: (202) 222-7100 Fax: (202) 222-7074 If you call, be polite, and tell them that George is wrong about Mitt being wrong on some Mormon doctrine and that he should stop bringing minute theological debates into his press reports! Labels: abcnews, doctrine, LDS Mormon Romney, Mormon, mormonism
|



 |
Show/Hide 15 Comments | Post a Comment